2020 (9) TMI 136 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - violation of the Foreign Trade Policy or misuse of SFIS scheme or of SFIS credits or not? - HELD THAT - The respondents have the power jurisdiction and authority to issue the aforesaid show cause notice for the alleged breach of Foreign Trade Policy and wrongly availing the benefits under Served from India Scheme (SFIS) The objections articulated by learned counsel for the petitioner are of a nature which can be taken before the authorities and do not call for a departure from the general principle that a writ petition will not be entertained against issuance of a show cause notice. As the show cause notice is yet to be decided or adjudicated upon by the concerned respondents authorities we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner has to give reply of the show cause notice to the concerned respondent authorities and if the respondents decide any issue against the petitioner the petitioner is not remediless. This is a premature writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice issued by Customs authorities.
2. Lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondents.
3. Alleged violation of Foreign Trade Policy and misuse of SFIS scheme.
4. Premature writ petition against issuance of show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged a show cause notice issued by Customs authorities, alleging a breach of Foreign Trade Policy and misuse of the SFIS scheme. The court noted that the respondents had the authority to issue the notice and that objections raised could be addressed through appropriate channels, rather than a writ petition against the notice itself.

2. The petitioner argued lack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondents, contending no violation of Foreign Trade Policy or misuse of SFIS credits. However, the court held that as the show cause notice was pending adjudication, it was premature to delve into the merits of the case at the writ petition stage.

3. Emphasizing the principle that a writ petition should not be entertained against the mere issuance of a show cause notice, the court cited precedents to support its decision. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice and allowing the authorities to adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law.

4. The court's decision highlighted the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention, especially in matters involving show cause notices. The judgment underscored the need for due process and adherence to legal procedures in addressing allegations of policy violations or misuse of government schemes.

Conclusion:
The judgment dismissed the writ petition challenging a show cause notice, emphasizing the premature nature of the petition and the need for the petitioner to respond to the notice through appropriate administrative channels. The court's decision underscored the importance of following due process and exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention in matters related to alleged policy violations or misuse of government schemes.